Federalism

Federalism, and all it stands for, underpins politics
in America. Federalism gives the executive
its power but it also gives states a great deal
of power as has been clarified in Dillon's Law. On many occasions, the Supreme
Court has been called on to adjudicate what federalism means (usually in
favour of the executive rather than states)
but the Constitution put a great deal of faith in federalism when the Founding
Fathers first constructed it.

Federalism is a system of government in which a written
constitution divides power between a central government and regional or
sub-divisional governments. Both types of government act directly upon the
people through their officials and laws.

Both types of government are supreme within their proper
sphere of authority. Both have to consent (agree) to any changes to the
constitution.

In America the term "federal government" is
usually understood to refer exclusively to the national government based in
Washington. This, however, is not an accurate interpretation of the term as it
excludes the role played by other aspects of government concerned with the
federalist structure.

Federalism can be seen a compromise between the extreme
concentration of power and a loose confederation of independent states for
governing a variety of people usually in a large expanse of territory.
Federalism has the virtue of retaining local pride, traditions and power, while
allowing a central government that can handle common problems. The basic
principle of American federalism is fixed in the Tenth Amendment
(ratified in 1791) to the Constitution which states:

"The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by itto
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

America has throughout its history seen federalism defined
in a variety of patterns.

Co-operative federalism: this assumes that the two
levels of government are essentially partners.Dual federalism: this assumes that the two levels are
functioning separately.Creative federalism: this involves common planning and
decision makingHorizontal federalism: this involves interactions and
common programmes among the 50 states.Marble-cake federalism: this is characterised by an
intermingling of all levels of government in policies and programming.Picket-fence federalism: this implies that bureaucrats
and clientele groups determine intergovernmental programmes.Vertical federalism: this is viewed as the traditional
form of federalism as it sees the actions of the national government as
supreme within their constitutional sphere.

In America each state has its own position of legal
autonomy and political significance. Though a state is not a sovereign body, it
does exercise power and can carry out functions that would be carried out by the
central authority in other governmental set-ups.

The Constitution set up a division of power between the
federal and state governments which initially limited the federal unit to the
fields of defence, foreign affairs, the control of the currency and the control
of commerce between the states.

This division of power has been eroded over the years so
that today the federal government has functions that have been greatly extended
and touch on nearly all aspects of life for American citizens.

Regardless of
this expansion of federal power, the states continue to be very important
political centres of government activity. Recent presidents such as Nixon and
Reagan tried to cut back the power of the federal government and give back to
the states power that was deemed to have been taken from them. The current president,
George W Bush, has promised to continue with what might be deemed a Republican
principle - making Federal government smaller.

This "New
Federalism" had limited success under Nixon and Reagan primarily due to the confusion as to who
did what after reforms in welfare. However, it was a recognition by two
presidents that the states could take greater responsibility in how they ran
themselves and also that there should be a reduction in federal authority.

The importance of the American states as legal entities is
considerable. As stated this is enshrined in the Constitution. Today, most of
the civil and criminal laws that govern Americansí lives are state laws. State
law also covers family law, traffic law and commercial law. The most obvious
example of a stateís right to implement laws for itself is the right a state
has to either have or not to have the death penalty for convicted murderers.

The states have important regulatory functions, laying
down many of the rules that businesses and trade unions must observe. States
have extensive powers of taxation and combined with local governments within
each state spend huge sums of money on social welfare, education, health and
hospitals. In 1955, the states spent a total of $37,244 millions on such
services. By 1978 this had increased to $295,510 millions. States have
considerable constitutional and legal autonomy on how they fulfill their role.
They are subject to only two major limitations The first is that:

The states must observe the Constitution of the United
States of America and they must obey valid laws of the federal government
made under the Constitution.

If a stateís laws offend against the Constitution, the
Supreme Court can declare them unconstitutional. If these laws conflict with
valid federal laws then the Supreme Court can take the same course of action. If
the Supreme Court decides that a law passed by Congress violates the rights of
states, then that law can also be declared unconstitutional.

In reality the Supreme Court has declared against state
laws far more frequently than laws passed by Congress that have implications at
state level and as a result the apparent legal power base of Congress has
gradually expanded over the years.

In 1985, in the case Garcia v San
Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Supreme Court essentially
concluded that "the only limits upon the power of the Federal Government
are political, and that any attempt to place constitutional limits upon the
power of the Federal Government is unrealistic." (Vile)

Federalism is still a potent
force in America and it continues to draw its vigour from the desire at a
political level to decentralise political power.

The second major limitation on state power is their
relative lack of financial resources compared with those of the federal
government.

No state can tax as effectively as the federal government
- nor, in fact, can all the states combined. This financial strength has enabled
the federal government to obtain the compliance of the states through its Grants-In-Aid
Scheme whereby grants are made to states but with certain conditions
attached.

The federal government has used state and local government as agents
to administer this aid and as such has the ability to keep the states concerned
in check. In theory this gives the federal government a great deal of power over
the states receiving aid. In reality, it is in the interests of all those
involved to work positively together especially when the sums of money involved
are so vast.

In 1978, GIA (Grants-In-Aid) totalled $70,000 million to the states
which represented 28% of their income from other sources. In the same year, the
federal government spent $348,000 million while in total the states and local
governments spent $295,000 million - a difference of $53,000 million. By 1990
this difference had increased to $135,400 million (though this represented a
decrease in the % income of the receiving states as befitted the belief of New
Federalism - see above)and by 1995 the figure for GIA stood at $228,000 million
which also fitted in with the downsizing of federal support so that states came
to rely less and less on federal aid.

However, states which have suffered from a natural disaster
and cannot begin to meet the monetary needs required to cope with that disaster,
can be declared a "disaster area" by the federal government and
receive financial support to cope with the problems presented.

The recent floods
in the Mid-West and the massive forest fires in Florida are examples of this.
The earthquakes in Los Angels and San Francisco lead to federal financial
aid.

Financially the local and state governments could not cope with these disasters
but the federal authority can. The only approach a state could take if it wanted
to express real freedom from the Federal government would be to put up state
taxes to such a level that it would make such an action political nonsense and
ruin any chance of being re-elected for Congress or
governor etc.

The current system helps to build a relationship
between the states and the government but it has lead to a powerful move towards
centralising government. Nixon and Reaganís attempt to reverse this by giving
states unconditional block grants (called "revenue sharing") has not
met with much success.